Conquer Club

here's what zeppelin90 said:

zeppelin90 wrote:i'd like a poll to vote no against the idea We have a lot of ancient battle type maps in progress and this idea doesn't impress me. Maybe it's that history bores me a bit -- but i think the majority of people would like maps that appeal to a greater mass.

IMO please dont rag on me

back on topic.

so it seems the results indicate A is the answer for all questions.

DiM wrote:so it seems the results indicate A is the answer for all questions.

At least it is for the first one judging by the map on his sig

Well after much adaption and actual re-working of the original map that i had prepared, here is Version 3 ready for discussion.

Please read P1 for general starting design information.

Enjoy!

zomg, this is again beautifull

you will get a review later, stuff to do

I think that his name should be Octavianus and not Octavius at this time.

Another thing, wouldn't it be better to name them O1, O2, O3, etc instead of Oa, Ob, Oc?

Ruben Cassar wrote:I think that his name should be Octavianus and not Octavius at this time.

Another thing, wouldn't it be better to name them O1, O2, O3, etc instead of Oa, Ob, Oc?

Hi Ruben...thanks for the post.
As the scholar of thing Roman I know you to be, if there is supporting evidence for the name change I would consider it, but also realise that all teh articles in Wiki, the Roman-net etc that I have seen, refer to him either as Octavian, or Gaius Octavius. The name Octavianus would alos be more letters to fit into confined spaced and I this is already limiting.

As to the O1, O2, etc did you read the first page of this thread? Using O1 etc will not sort properly in order for some regions as there is more than 10 terts in some, and if I used numerals I would have to use the double form O01 O02 O03 etc which is more writing and reading issues. That's why I used Oa Ob Oc etc. I think it works just fine.

Please let me know about the Octavianus link and I'll have a look if you have it.

Apart from that, do you like the map, concept, colours etc.

EDIT// "Owing to his adoption," (by Julius Caesar) "Octavius assumed the name Gaius Julius Caesar. Roman tradition dictated that he also append the surname Octavianus (Octavian) to indicate his biological family; however, no evidence exists that he ever used that name."
REF : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus; Para "Rise to Power"

Sorry, Ruben, it seems there is evidence as above, but since he didn't use that name, then Octavius is good for me.

"Octavius also learned formally of his inheritance and adoption by the terms of Caesar's will, which had been broadcast by Marc Antony. By law, the adopted son of Caesar, Gaius Octavius, would now legally be known as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus."

Source: http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Augustus/Oc ... index.html

This happened before the battle of Actium so at that time he was known as Octavianus. Later he was known as Augustus. Octavian is the Anglicised name given to him like Mark Anotny for Marcus Antonius and thus not his proper Latin name.

Don't always believe what wikipedia says, anyone can write anything in it.

Ruben Cassar wrote:"Octavius also learned formally of his inheritance and adoption by the terms of Caesar's will, which had been broadcast by Marc Antony. By law, the adopted son of Caesar, Gaius Octavius, would now legally be known as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus."

Source: http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Augustus/Oc ... index.html

This happened before the battle of Actium so at that time he was known as Octavianus. Later he was known as Augustus. Octavian is the Anglicised name given to him like Mark Anotny for Marcus Antonius and thus not his proper Latin name.

Don't always believe what wikipedia says, anyone can write anything in it.

Would you be offended if i stuck with Octavius? Afterall that was his birth name.

Not much I can say about the map exept the fact that those white land pillars need changing.

unriggable wrote:Not much I can say about the map exept the fact that those white land pillars need changing.

Yes thanks unriggable....there is changes going to happen there...keep your eyes peeled.
actually...i'm surprised this got moved out of new ideas so quickly!

I wasn't happy with blocks and columns, so i made greek buildings and army tents.

cairnswk wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:"Octavius also learned formally of his inheritance and adoption by the terms of Caesar's will, which had been broadcast by Marc Antony. By law, the adopted son of Caesar, Gaius Octavius, would now legally be known as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus."

Source: http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Augustus/Oc ... index.html

This happened before the battle of Actium so at that time he was known as Octavianus. Later he was known as Augustus. Octavian is the Anglicised name given to him like Mark Anotny for Marcus Antonius and thus not his proper Latin name.

Don't always believe what wikipedia says, anyone can write anything in it.

Would you be offended if i stuck with Octavius? Afterall that was his birth name.

I am slowly trying to accept it. It's hard but I will succeed eventually...hopefully...

Ruben Cassar wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:"Octavius also learned formally of his inheritance and adoption by the terms of Caesar's will, which had been broadcast by Marc Antony. By law, the adopted son of Caesar, Gaius Octavius, would now legally be known as Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus."

Source: http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Augustus/Oc ... index.html

This happened before the battle of Actium so at that time he was known as Octavianus. Later he was known as Augustus. Octavian is the Anglicised name given to him like Mark Anotny for Marcus Antonius and thus not his proper Latin name.

Don't always believe what wikipedia says, anyone can write anything in it.

Would you be offended if i stuck with Octavius? Afterall that was his birth name.

I am slowly trying to accept it. It's hard but I will succeed eventually...hopefully...

Ruben...you're a jolly good sport!

Looks pretty impressive cairns, but geez... you like to create some pretty intense maps. Give me some time to figure it all out and have a detailed look over it and I'll get back to you.

I think you should find a way to make those giant boats not bordeer so many countries, they're like the oceans in alexander's empire.

KEYOGI wrote:Looks pretty impressive cairns, but geez... you like to create some pretty intense maps. Give me some time to figure it all out and have a detailed look over it and I'll get back to you.

Thanks Keyogi
Intense? That's what war is, is it not? At least there is not attack lines running all over the place in this one....LOL
Also Keyogi...as you know I like to try things a lilttle different for variety....it's the spicce of life!

Below is the small version simply upsized to the large version so the army shadows are also bigger than they will be.

unriggable wrote:I think you should find a way to make those giant boats not bordeer so many countries, they're like the oceans in alexander's empire.

Thanks unriggable...why is this a challenge....is there a prob with them bordering so many terts....the max I can count is 6 terts around Arruntius and M Antonius....let me know? Does this affect overall strategy or make it harder for them to be captured?

cairnswk wrote:

unriggable wrote:I think you should find a way to make those giant boats not bordeer so many countries, they're like the oceans in alexander's empire.

Thanks unriggable...why is this a challenge....is there a prob with them bordering so many terts....the max I can count is 6 terts around Arruntius and M Antonius....let me know? Does this affect overall strategy or make it harder for them to be captured?

Well the person who captures them has a huge advantage, since they have so much fewer bordering countries. Try to make them take up fewer hexagons by making the ship smaller. I think that you're workning on the small version anyways so it should matter too much.

unriggable wrote:Well the person who captures them has a huge advantage, since they have so much fewer bordering countries. Try to make them take up fewer hexagons by making the ship smaller. I think that you're workning on the small version anyways so it should matter too much.

I'm sorry...please explain what "since they have so much fewer bordering countries" means.

unriggable wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

unriggable wrote:I think you should find a way to make those giant boats not bordeer so many countries, they're like the oceans in alexander's empire.

Thanks unriggable...why is this a challenge....is there a prob with them bordering so many terts....the max I can count is 6 terts around Arruntius and M Antonius....let me know? Does this affect overall strategy or make it harder for them to be captured?

Well the person who captures them has a huge advantage, since they have so much fewer bordering countries. Try to make them take up fewer hexagons by making the ship smaller. I think that you're workning on the small version anyways so it should matter too much.

not really

let's see all the ships.

if L takes Sosius there's no advantage. same # of borders to protect
if S takes lurius there's no advantage. same # of borders to protect
if I takes Octavius not only there's no advantage but he has one more border to protect
if O takes Insteius there's no advantage. same # of borders to protect
if M takes Arruntius not only there's no advantage but he has one more border to protect
if A takes Antonius he has 2 less borders to protect.

so my guess is that the big ships are fine like this.

Like how it is coming, cairnswk!

It is great how all your maps are unique, and have interesting gameplay aspects.

You keep making them and I'll keep playing them. Love Battle for Austalia, by the way!

Cheers

Gozar

Gozar wrote:Like how it is coming, cairnswk!
It is great how all your maps are unique, and have interesting gameplay aspects.
You keep making them and I'll keep playing them. Love Battle for Austalia, by the way!
Cheers
Gozar

Hey Gozar!
Thanks...glad to hear you're enjoying them. Yes I try to make something a little different each time.

What sources are you using for the names? You're missing Agrippa, who was probably the guy responsible for Octavian's victory.

As a little extra to the Octavius/Octavian question, Wikipedia is indeed correct on that one. Appian tells us that, although his name should have become C. Julius Caesar Octavianus after his adoption, he dropped the Octavianus part altogether and went by the name of C. Julius Caesar. So instead of Octavian, son of Octavius, he referred to himself as Caesar, son of Caesar. Most of the rest of the ancient world referred to him in the same way (except his enemies) and he is usually called Caesar in the sources. Octavian came into use much later by historians in order to make it easier to distinguish between him and the man we know as Julius Caesar. I remember reading somewhere that he hated the name Octavianus himself, so it's kind of funny that it's how we know him now. Or as Augustus after 27 B.C., which he also probably didn't use himself either.

Incidentally, if you're sticking with Octavius, the G. should be a C. for Gaius.

Thanks for the post Gwalchmai...

Gwalchmai wrote:What sources are you using for the names? You're missing Agrippa, who was probably the guy responsible for Octavian's victory.

various maps available in google. wasn't Agrippa and Octavius on the same ship?

Incidentally, if you're sticking with Octavius, the G. should be a C. for Gaius.

this last bit i don't understand. how could a C represent Gaius which starts with a G? If this is something to do with latin, then pleae let's stick with the G.

No, various sources have him doing different things. If I were in a particularly cynical mood, I might even go so far as to suggest he was hanging around at the back somewhere just in case things went wrong.

Plutarch probably gives the most complete sketch, although by no means the defiitive since other variations are possible for some of the postings.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... oc=Ant.+65

The battle layout is in the first four lines. His Caelius/Coelius might be a mistake for Sosius, and Arruntius turns up in the next section as being in charge of Octavian's centre.

The C. is to do with the Latin but it is also standard usage in English texts. You won't find G. anywhere (at least, I've never seen it), for all the fact that it is the first letter of Gaius so its not just a case of using C. making it agree with the Latin of the time.